[blml] Fwd: Re: Live exam question

[Eric Landau]

At 02:15 AM 9/29/06, Sven wrote:

> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller
>.........
> > >No, Steve was talking about the explicit right, not
> > >subject to any zonal option, that "defenders may
> > >ask declarer"; in response to Herman De Wael's
> > >assertion that a defender may _not_ ask declarer
> > >whenever declarer and partner show out on the same
> > >trick.
> > Defender can always ask declarer, but in the event that
> > declarer was really void and partner was the one who
> > revoked then I suppose this is UI in zones
> > that haven't opted out of 61B (suppose it would
> > be OK in S.Pacific or ACBL, where the defender
> > could legally have asked his partner in the first place).
>
>The rule is crystal clear: Where a defender's explicit question to his
>partner of a possible revoke is a violation of Law 61B so is also 
>considered
>any action or mannerism which although not being an explicit question 
>still
>is likely to alert partner of the possibility that he has revoked.

That seems a bit categorical.  Suppose I cash the CA, but partner, who 
has clubs, unknowingly "follows" with a spade, which is trump.  Then 
nothing happens.  I can sit there and look at partner until he wakes 
up, or I can tell him it's his lead; unless the opponents prove 
helpful, I have no third choice.  So whatever I do will be an "action 
or mannerism which... is likely to alert partner [to] the possibility 
that he has revoked".


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607